Do Bigfoots that are Injured, or too old Hunt Dangerous?

[Backdoc]

12 hours ago, NorCalWitness said:

I take most fantastic old stories with a major grain of salt. Many of these legends were published in a small newspaper first, in order to sell more papers. 

 

 

YEP

 

Edited 11 hours ago by Backdoc

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, Backdoc said:

.........What best evidence? Is there some kind of best evidence I have been missing here that strongly points to Bigfoot 1) being a very high order human/animal AND 2) Operating in organized societies who are so higher order they bury their dead?  Evidence? .......

Ah , the old <adjective> evidence game! I know how to play!

 

Quote

.........Because bigfoot is not a human.  That's why.........

Got any <adjective> evidence to back up that definitive pronouncement? How about defining "human" for us, please?

[NorCalWitness]

4 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

A kidnapping by a Sasquatch is truly a fantastic story, but none of the three stories that I've mentioned had a basis of origin in a small newspaper at all, which has now become widely believed in the story of Jocko. 

 

In the Ostman story, Ostman was a known personage who did report his story to his local newspaper (The Province) in 1957, 33 years after the kidnapping, but he had no motivation to "sell more papers". He remained alive for years after he told his story and was well interviewed, unlike the persons in the Jocko story.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Ostman

 

The Muchalat Harry story was told to Bigfoot author and investigator Peter Byrne by Father Anthony Terhaar of Mt. Angel Abbey in Oregon, who was a missionary priest who traveled the west coast of Vancouver Island for many years, and was living at Nootka at the time of the story and who knew Muchalat Harry very well.

 

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/classics/muchalat.htm

 

The third story has never made the newspapers. I found it posted to an Internet forum of Alaskan outdoorsmen in 2010. It has all the hallmarks of a scary campfire story, but it has some very intestine features (poop smearing) that I've never heard or read of before (but which goes quite a ways toward explaining some of the stench reports involving sasquatches), and I've come to recognize that poster from later posts, and who appears to be a pretty cogent guy.

 

https://bigfootforums.com/topic/28150-a-coast-range-bigfoot-story/#comment-544030

 

 

 

 

great post. thanks 

[Backdoc]

19 minutes ago, Huntster said:

Ah , the old <adjective> evidence game! I know how to play!

 

Got any <adjective> evidence to back up that definitive pronouncement? How about defining "human" for us, please?

 

(When best evidence is claimed) instead of a discussion or presentation of this best evidence I get a "How about defining "Human" challenge.   Not sure I understand the response really.  Isn't the best response just to show be this best evidence.   

 

I could define human.  I would suggest it is better to define the capabilities of humans.  Some say bigfoot has many of those capabilities.  I don't happen to be one of them for what I feel is good reason.  One good reason is this Best Evidence is not being presented here.  Somehow this turns into me being ask to define "humans".    In what world is that a reasonable response? 

 

I would say if I was presented with the Best Evidence, I would gladly look at it.   

 

There is a quality of humans I hope bigfoot doesn't possess.  That is the quality of holding a belief so dearly that anyone who has any disagreement with that belief- even in a small degree- is seen as attacking the belief if not the person who holds it.   It's going to take time and a step back to understand that is not what I have done here.

 

I will look forward to the best evidence. 

 

 

[Huntster]

32 minutes ago, Backdoc said:

(When best evidence is claimed) instead of a discussion or presentation of this best evidence I get a "How about defining "Human" challenge.   Not sure I understand the response really.  Isn't the best response just to show be this best evidence.........

 

My take on MIB's use of the phrase "best evidence" isn't meant to mean "the best evidence possible", which is often the game played by denialists, wordsmiths, scientists, and pseudo-scientists, but "the best evidence we have to go by". I hope MIB will correct me if I understood incorrectly.

 

Yes, I do hereby challenge you to "define human", because if you don't, we'll be playing different games alongside each other, and this particular game goes way, way deep.

 

Quote

........I could define human.  I would suggest it is better to define the capabilities of humans..........

 

No, it wouldn't. Some humans aren't capable of wiping their own backside after defecating, and some humans culturally don't do it on a social basis. Let's not expand the game, please. Just define "human". Like this:

 

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/human

 

Quote

BIOLOGY    specialized

a member of a species of the genus (= group of species)Homo: 

archaic human Extinct species of the genus (collectively called archaichumans) include H. habilis, H. erectus, and H. neanderthalensis.

modern human H. heidelbergensis has sometimes been regarded as the last common ancestor of modern humans and Neanderthals.

 

^^^^^ That's a dictionary query. That's the "best evidence" we have for the definition of "human", but you can still play. There are several definitions on that dictionary entry. For example, you can choose this one:

 

Quote

being, relating to, or belonging to a person or to people as opposedto animals: 

 

Or this one:

 

Quote

having the qualities, faults, and feelings that people have, as opposed to gods, animals, or machines: 

 

There are other dictionaries, as well. Please choose your "best evidence", either in "best in quality" or the "best you have".

 

Quote

......... Some say bigfoot has many of those capabilities.  I don't happen to be one of them for what I feel is good reason..........  

 

Science (big "S") says that Homo rudolfensis (lived 2 million years ago) was "human" (of the genus homo).

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_rudolfensis 

 

Their "best evidence" are a few bones. But they know nothing about their habits, "capabilities", or even if they were covered with feathers or scales. They can take educated guesses, but they can't prove it. They go on the "best evidence" they have, and they argue their positions amongst each other like lawyers.

 

Like we do...............

 

Quote

.........There is a quality of humans I hope bigfoot doesn't possess.  That is the quality of holding a belief so dearly that anyone who has any disagreement with that belief- even in a small degree- is seen as attacking the belief if not the person who holds it.......... 

 

I think that the "best evidence" indicates that a sasquatch would likely "attack" a person by clubbing them to death with a stick instead of debating like a lawyer, but I can't prove it. Why is that the "best evidence"? Because there is no testimony whatsoever of any lawyer-like behavior exhibited by sasquatches, but there is plenty of testimony claiming violent behavior. 

 

Maybe you can define "attack" for me, please?

[MIB]

4 hours ago, Backdoc said:

Obviously this results in my answering the question differently based on my different viewpoint. 

 

And a total lack of personal experience.   

[FLY]

 

Quote

When daylight came he was able to see that he was in a sort of camp, under a high rock shelf 

 I wonder if this place could be found

[georgerm]

Whenever we start discussing a topic it seems like we begin by creating a discussion that is on topic then as the discussion progresses, it begins to diverge from the original topic and becomes very obscure and difficult for others to follow. When this happens then we need to break the topic in two and start another one or stick with the original topic. 

Are Bigfoots that are Injured, or too old Hunt Dangerous?  This category of Bigfoot would probably be a danger to others who come walking along a trail, and they don't realize that an injured Bigfoot is setting up an ambush. Ambushing a human and taking it back into the hills for a meal might be characteristic for injured or sick bigfoots. This type of Bigfoot being fairly cognizant knows that this type of behavior can bring in human search parties which is very bad for the overall population of the Bigfoot. Now someone brought up the fact that possibly the Bigfoots are more advanced than we think they are, and when there is an injured or sick Bigfoot they have the ability of feeling empathy for another of their own, and they help the handicapped individuals survive within Bigfoot clan structure.

 

If a Bigfoot is sick or injured and has been banned from the tribe of Bigfoots, then it is more likely to use ambush measures of humans to survive. Within the clan structure, if one of the members dies then why would they bother to dig a grave and bury this Bigfoot? Yes, it could be an advanced norm where they honor their dead or they simply could be thinking more practically and avoid bringing in dangerous scavengers such as bears or bobcats. These scavengers could do damage to the clan of Bigfoots so they finally figured out it's better to bury them. My personal belief is that Bigfoots bury their dead so humans will not be able to locate the clans hiding area. 

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, FLY said:

.........I wonder if this place could be found

 

It would be a rough few days in the wet woods, but maybe. Byrne spent a few days looking for it. I don't think he found it, but the end of his account indicated that he enjoyed the time spent.

 

I'm not going there because it's Canada, and they won't allow me to have my guns there. There's more than one way to skin a cat (or protect sasquatches).............

[norseman]

1 hour ago, georgerm said:

Whenever we start discussing a topic it seems like we begin by creating a discussion that is on topic then as the discussion progresses, it begins to diverge from the original topic and becomes very obscure and difficult for others to follow. When this happens then we need to break the topic in two and start another one or stick with the original topic. 

Are Bigfoots that are Injured, or too old Hunt Dangerous?  This category of Bigfoot would probably be a danger to others who come walking along a trail, and they don't realize that an injured Bigfoot is setting up an ambush. Ambushing a human and taking it back into the hills for a meal might be characteristic for injured or sick bigfoots. This type of Bigfoot being fairly cognizant knows that this type of behavior can bring in human search parties which is very bad for the overall population of the Bigfoot. Now someone brought up the fact that possibly the Bigfoots are more advanced than we think they are, and when there is an injured or sick Bigfoot they have the ability of feeling empathy for another of their own, and they help the handicapped individuals survive within Bigfoot clan structure.

 

If a Bigfoot is sick or injured and has been banned from the tribe of Bigfoots, then it is more likely to use ambush measures of humans to survive. Within the clan structure, if one of the members dies then why would they bother to dig a grave and bury this Bigfoot? Yes, it could be an advanced norm where they honor their dead or they simply could be thinking more practically and avoid bringing in dangerous scavengers such as bears or bobcats. These scavengers could do damage to the clan of Bigfoots so they finally figured out it's better to bury them. My personal belief is that Bigfoots bury their dead so humans will not be able to locate the clans hiding area. 

The answer to your original question is YES.

 

We talked about Timothy Treadwell and the old bear guarding his carcass when the Park Service showed up. A similar situation IMHO. I have no doubt a starving Bigfoot in the right setting would hunt and eat a human. It’s also well documented in Indian folklore.

 

But now we are debating about do Bigfeet take care of the old or injured? Or if they have human characteristics at all. Do they live in a family group to facilitate care?

 

My personal experience is that I have never seen evidence of family groups. The trackway we cut in snow was alone. Patty in the Patterson Gimlin Film was alone. Lots of singular trackways in reports, etc.

 

BUT. We also have reports like Ostman and Ape Canyon that do have them living in family groups. And there is absolutely no way that a breeding population of a species doesn’t come together. Maybe that’s seasonally? Maybe that’s a rut? Or berry picking season? Dunno. I am not saying that 15 Bigfeet are all living in a cave together like Neanderthals. But certainly if procreation is happening? Which it must? They have to be able to find each other and be together at least for a time.

 

The answer is most likely BOTH. And my best WAG is that the males especially young males are more solitary. And mothers and daughters probably hang closer together in small groups depending on the season, maternity status and food availability. 
 

The Olympic project nesting site certainly suggests that they were living in a group. But we have no idea what that group dynamic looks like. 

3 hours ago, FLY said:

 

 I wonder if this place could be found

If memory serves it was close to the Toba inlet.

[FLY]

16 minutes ago, norseman said:

The answer to your original question is YES.

 

We talked about Timothy Treadwell and the old bear guarding his carcass when the Park Service showed up. A similar situation IMHO. I have no doubt a starving Bigfoot in the right setting would hunt and eat a human. It’s also well documented in Indian folklore.

 

But now we are debating about do Bigfeet take care of the old or injured? Or if they have human characteristics at all. Do they live in a family group to facilitate care?

 

My personal experience is that I have never seen evidence of family groups. The trackway we cut in snow was alone. Patty in the Patterson Gimlin Film was alone. Lots of singular trackways in reports, etc.

 

BUT. We also have reports like Ostman and Ape Canyon that do have them living in family groups. And there is absolutely no way that a breeding population of a species doesn’t come together. Maybe that’s seasonally? Maybe that’s a rut? Or berry picking season? Dunno. I am not saying that 15 Bigfeet are all living in a cave together like Neanderthals. But certainly if procreation is happening? Which it must? They have to be able to find each other and be together at least for a time.

 

The answer is most likely BOTH. And my best WAG is that the males especially young males are more solitary. And mothers and daughters probably hang closer together in small groups depending on the season, maternity status and food availability. 
 

The Olympic project nesting site certainly suggests that they were living in a group. But we have no idea what that group dynamic looks like. 

If memory serves it was close to the Toba inlet.

I meant the rock overhang

[Huntster]

13 minutes ago, norseman said:

 

.........If memory serves it was close to the Toba inlet.

 

 

That was the Ostman event. I believe FLY was referring to the Muchalat Harry event. It is believed that his camp was @ 12 miles up the Conuma River from its mouth in Tlupana Inlet on the west side of Vancouver Island. The sasquatch "camp" was believed to be within 2-3 miles from his camp. 

[Huntster]

 

Twelve miles up the Conuma River looks like Grand Central Station now. A road, clear cuts, the whole shebang.

 

 

[norseman]

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

 

That was the Ostman event. I believe FLY was referring to the Muchalat Harry event. It is believed that his camp was @ 12 miles up the Conuma River from its mouth in Tlupana Inlet on the west side of Vancouver Island. The sasquatch "camp" was believed to be within 2-3 miles from his camp. 

Gotcha. Sorry! I am not familiar with Harry’s account.